Suzuki says satori is irrational, it cannot be explained.
Logical positivism says that we can only talk meaningfully about things which refer to experience. See for example Hempel's "The Empiricist Criterion of Meaning" in Ayer's Logical Positivism
Are these incompatible? I claim they are not, because even holding to the requirements of the positivists, there is still an area that allows things which cannot be explained, which I explain by analogy with the computational classes of P vs. NP.
Logical positivism says that we can only talk meaningfully about things which refer to experience. See for example Hempel's "The Empiricist Criterion of Meaning" in Ayer's Logical Positivism
Are these incompatible? I claim they are not, because even holding to the requirements of the positivists, there is still an area that allows things which cannot be explained, which I explain by analogy with the computational classes of P vs. NP.
Continue reading Zen Satori and P vs. NP.
